Kything The Order of Nine Angles

Posted: December 6th, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: O9A, Order of Nine Angles, Order of the Nine Angles, Satanic Heresy, The Sinister Tradition | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Kything The Order of Nine Angles

Kything The Order of Nine Angles

° Preface
° 1. The Esoteric Philosophy Of The Order Of Nine Angles
° 2. Explaining The Acausal
° 3. Perusing The Seven Fold Way – Historical Origins Of The Septenary System Of The Order of Nine Angles
° 4. Notes On The Esoteric Learning Presenced Through Pathei-Mathos
° 5. O9A Esotericism: An Initiated Apprehension
° 6. The Pagan Mysticism Of The O9A

° 7. In The Name Of The Order Of Nine Angles


Due to the increase in recent years in the number of individuals publicly opining about the Order of Nine Angles (O9A/ONA), both via the medium of the internet and via the medium of printed books, it seems only fitting to present an informed, initiated, insight into the O9A, especially as the opinionastry displayed by the majority of those who do opine and have so opined about the O9A reveals that their knowledge and understanding of the O9A is or was either rudimentary or non-existent.

Hence this kything: this ‘making known in words’ in the form of seven recent texts by various O9A folk, and which texts place the O9A into the correct historical, and occult, context. The context of esoteric philosophy, of an ancient paganism, of a esoteric tradition much older than the qabalistic one favoured by most Western occultists, and which tradition is rooted in ancient Greek mysticism and Hellenic hermeticism and influenced by Arabic and Persian sources.

The O9A is thus revealed as not only a unique modern esoteric philosophy, presenced by various antinomian praxises and by a modern elitist mystic anados (ἄνοδος), but also as sinisterly-numinous, and pagan, in ethos. Hence, (i) why it is apposite to describe, and classify, the O9A as a ‘sinisterly-numinous’ mystic tradition – and not a ‘satanist’ nor even a Left Hand Path tradition; and (ii) why its extreme type of ‘satanism’ is only a particular causal form – a causal presencing – of its particular esotericism. For that ‘satanist’ presencing is but one part of the ‘sinister’ aspect of the sinisterly-numinous tradition: that is, a necessary and novitiate pathei-mathos, and thus one gateway (one nexion) into the strange acausal, mystic, occult world presenced by the O9A and by its paradoxical, oft-times intentionally confusing, mythos.

Comments are closed.